The Indiana Property Tax Cap Amendment will appear on the November 2, 2010 ballot in the state of Indiana as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure, if enacted by a simple majority of Indiana voters, will add property tax caps to the Indiana Constitution.

Paraphrasing a comment about the amendment enshrining a similar untested statute, I wonder if they are talking about the method of property assessment in Indiana. i.e. market value

I don't recall if there are any pending lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of this method or not.

Property taxes should stay local instead of being paid to the State and then the State deciding how much will come back to the county and to the schools. I wonder where Jud and Bob stand on that issue.

If it wasn't for the state telling Sullivan County how much they can and can not spend we would all be taxed out of our homes by now. Just look at the commissioners meetings in Sullivan they always say they nevr have enough money.

I agree the state is taking the money for themselves and leaving the local governments, who really provide the real services, to fend for themselves. I am voting no. If it passes the state will have a bigger budget a and we will be taxed to death.

I honestly think the Indiana voters are entitled to more information about this amendment and the impact of what it means AND we deserve to have this information prior to the election. It's not very often that we show up to vote and they actually have an "issue" that we get to vote on. On the surface it appears to be a good thing, however, I have a feeling there is more to this amendment then we are being told. I bet 75% of all people voting in the State will not have heard about this prior to showing up to vote. And I would also bet that they will vote yes because of the language used "tax cap".

I honestly think the Indiana voters are entitled to more information about this amendment and the impact of what it means AND we deserve to have this information prior to the election. It's not very often that we show up to vote and they actually have an "issue" that we get to vote on. On the surface it appears to be a good thing, however, I have a feeling there is more to this amendment then we are being told. I bet 75% of all people voting in the State will not have heard about this prior to showing up to vote. And I would also bet that they will vote yes because of the language used "tax cap".

"Circuit breakers and other property tax matters. Requires, for property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter, the general assembly to limit a taxpayer's property tax liability as follows:(1) A taxpayer's property tax liability on homestead property may not exceed 1% of the gross assessed value of the homestead property.(2) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other residential property may not exceed 2% of the gross assessed value of the other residential property.(3) A taxpayer's property tax liability on agricultural land may not exceed 2% of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of the agricultural land.(4) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other real property may not exceed 3% of the gross assessed value of the other real property.(5) A taxpayer's property tax liability on personal property may not exceed 3% of the gross assessed value of the taxpayer's personal property that is the basis for the determination of property taxes within a particular taxing district. Specifies that property taxes imposed after being approved by the voters in a referendum shall not be considered for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax liability under these provisions. Provides that in the case of a county for which the general assembly determines in 2008 that limits to property tax liability are expected to reduce in 2010 the aggregate property tax revenue that would otherwise be collected by all units and school corporations in the county by at least 20%, the general assembly may provide that property taxes imposed in the county to pay debt service or make lease payments for bonds or leases issued or entered into before July 1, 2008, shall not be considered for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax."

Now here's a question I have. It talks about not being able to collect more than a certain percentage of "assessed value", which makes sense. HOWEVER, what prevents them from changing the way a property gets assessed in order to collect more money. I know they have the "market value" method now, but what if that method is changed to increase the amount of money they can collect. I personally don't know why such an amendment is necessary. Seems that a State Statute would have the same effect. Something just doesn't feel right about this.

Supporters: * Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is a supporter of the measure, stating that the proposal would lead to a 2 percent increase in net household income as well as creating 97,000 new jobs. Daniels cited a Ball State University study that backed these assessments.[2] * Indiana Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman supports the measure, stating that adding tax caps to the Indiana Constitution "assures families their property taxes will be low and predictable forever."[3] * State Representative Bruce Borders claimed about the tax caps, "If we don't pass these it will be then 20 years from now, 30 years from now. We'll always be promising protection that doesn't exist. And so we have this once in a lifetime opportunity and I absolutely mean that. This one time in a lifetime opportunity for you to have protection."[4]

Arguments

* Aaron Smith of Watchdog Indiana stated, "The constitutional amendment will make our home owner property tax deductions immune from legal challenge and a fair and affordable tax burden include particularly property taxes are important to working families."[5] * Andrea Neal, a teacher at St. Richard's Episcopal School in Indianapolis and adjunct scholar with the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, stated in a column published by the Indianapolis Star, citing a report done about the measure, "On Election Day, voters have the chance to make the caps permanent. Even with the sales tax increase, Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research has found the caps will have "a positive effect on the Indiana economy in the long run increasing employment, income and investment.""[6]

If I read this question on the ballot correctly, it states that people who live in mobile homes would not have to pay property taxes. Everyone, including ones who live in mobile homes should vote no for this amendment. It's going to raise taxes for everyone if it passes. What is the benefit if not to raise taxes. Someone explain?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.